fossilfandomcom-20200214-history
Fossil Wiki:Good article nominations
__NOEDITSECTION__ Good article nominations Here, we determine which articles are to become [[FW:GA|'good articles']]. Good articles exemplify the Fossil Wiki's very best work, as decided by the site's editors. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with any objections which may arise during the GAN review process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. An article should not be on this page, Good article reviews or the Featured article pages at the same time. Reviewers are strongly encouraged to check back frequently on any objections they may have left — please do not leave resolved objections unstruck for more than a few days. If an objection/comment of yours has been sufficiently satisfied, then please strike it (using the and tags). If the nominator asks for clarification of an objection, please be courteous and civil in responding — remember, just because an objection may be clear to you in your head, it may not be as clear for others. Nominators, likewise, please remember to be civil in dealing with objections. Remember that objections, when done properly, are simply pieces of constructive criticism which, in the end, will help to make the GAN better! As such, please work hard together with the objector to resolve any problems that may arise over the article. Also, nominators, please split the GAN page into subsections using header code ( GAN title ). If in doubt of what the formatting should look like, feel free to leave a note at The Fossil Site and someone will lend help as soon as possible. The current GA director, Meghunter99, determines the timing of the process for each nomination on a case by case basis — this will normally range from five days at the minimum, depending on the activity of the GAN in question, though that is only a guideline in some cases. For a nomination to be promoted to Good article status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgement of the director or his delegate: * actionable objections have not been resolved; * consensus for promotion has not been reached; or * insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the nomination process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Nevertheless, if you do not feel comfortable raising an objection over something and instead opt to fix the problem yourself and then support the nomination, please feel free to! That, in several editor's minds, is just as useful, if not more, than the objection process. Good article nominations: *'Remember:' When voting on this page please use the or templates at the beginning of your vote. Questions? Ask at The Field Site! *